The Issue of Diversity in The Workplace

Introduction

We live in a world where diversity plays a huge part in people's lives. Diversity has become huge as we progress in this world we call “life”.It has become more complex from when this country was “founded” and still increases as we progress. In today's time employers have to consider hiring people of all sorts, such as females, ethnic and cultural minorities, and the hiring of people from various religious backgrounds. Diversity is more complicated in the United States than anywhere else , due to the amount of diversity in our country and how many people want to live in the U.S. The U.S is seen by other countries for being huge on developing fair laws that concern employment to people. This however makes it extremely important that as a nation we continue to remain our ever changing conditions of workplace diversity since its huge. This paper that I conducted not only discusses cases of diversity in the workplace but as well as the general issue for people around the world.

Diversity & Culture

University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer

1989 AND 1991 where the years that, only one percent of the University of Nevada’s faculty were African American, while approximately 89% of the faculty was Caucasian. In an attempt to lessen the racial imbalance among faculty members, the University created the “minority bonus policy,” an amendment to its already-in-place affirmative action program. This amendment basically gave the departments permission to hire additional faculty members following the primary employment of a minority candidate.

The University encountered a vacancy in the sociology department, this occured in 1990. The announcement for candidates to fill the position stated a need for experience in teaching social psychology courses and stated a salary range between $28,000.00 and $34,000.00, depending on a candidate’s experience and qualifications.

An African American candidate, Johnson Makoba, and a Caucasian female candidate, Farmer, were both considered for the position, and their qualifications were measured as being comparable. However, inevitably Makoba was offered the position, with Farmer being hired the next year. Although the University hired Makoba at an initial salary of $35,000.00, Farmer was offered a starting salary of $31,000.00, despite the fact that they were responsible for completing identical tasks. Personally this is wrong , knowing that both candidates were qualified but were not the same to them

Farmer filed a complaint against the University of Nevada, claiming that it had violated the Equal Pay Act by paying her unequal wages for equal work as compared to a male employee (Makoba) who displayed almost identical qualifications which was January 1993. She also stated that the university was responsible for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by paying her less that a man doing the same work.

The University of Nevada’s affirmative action plan conforms to the factors of that time designed to increase the number of minorities holding positions of authority in major companies and corporations (University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer, 1997). The University's attempts to diversify its faculty by creating or making available positions previously not available to minorities was a good-faith effort to increase the cause of affirmative action. Also, the Supreme Court determined that the University’s actions did not negatively affect the rights of Caucasians in any way. The University's 1992 Affirmative Action Report revealed that Caucasians still held 87 to 89% of all full-time faculty positions within the University. Finally, with African Americans still occupying only approximately one percent of the available faculty positions, it is clear that through its minority bonus policy, the University was attempted to attain a more equal racial balance.

The University's affirmative action plan therefore did not violate any constitutional measures, as would be necessary for the United States Supreme Court to become involved. The University effectively showed that its primary interest was in fostering a culturally and ethnically diverse faculty, not to discriminate against a particular candidate (Farmer). The university maintained that a failure to make an attempt to attract minority faculty members would lead to the University's Caucasian majority and limit student exposure to multicultural diversity (University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer, 1997). Through its affirmative action policies, the University managed to achieve both greater racial and gender diversity by hiring both Makoba and Farmer. It is also important to note the fact that Farmer's position was a direct result of the minority bonus policy, as was Makoba’s.

Outsourcing Actions Taken by Watchmark-Comnitel

Outsourcing began at Watchmark-Comnitel with American positions being moved to overseas companies that were able to complete the work at a lower cost, thus saving the company money. Employees who lost their positions in the company were offered the choice of training their replacements and receiving a severance package or of forfeiting the severance package by not offering to train their replacements (Cook, 2004). The company reported that the majority of displaced employees elected to train their replacements (Cook, 2004). When the company was eventually acquired by IBM, positions opened up for new employees both in the U. S. and overseas.

From both deontological and teleological perspectives, there can be some debate concerning the actions of Watchmark-Comnitel. While the company offered the employees losing their positions to outsourcing a generous severance package in return for training their replacements, this was not the agreement that the company had originally made with its U. S. employees. Employees hired to work at the Watchmark-Comnitel corporation had the expectation that they would have positions with the company so long as they met the requirements of their positions (Cook, 2004). Therefore, by outsourcing the positions of employees who were fulfilling their part of the employment arrangement, the company could be seen as acting in a manner that was not deontologically sound (Harvey & Allard, 2015). While the majority of American employees understand that the company they work for has as its first goal the ability to earn as much profit as possible, there is also an implicit understanding that companies will show loyalty to employees that fulfill their obligations to the company, and that such employees will not lose their positions simply because less expensive labor becomes available elsewhere.

Why it is Easier to Comply to Diversity Standards in Canada than in the US

Globalization presents different diversity issues within different labor markets represented in different national and cultural environments. How difficult it is to comply with diversity standards in various countries will depend to a large extent on the amount of diversity among the available workforce. There is no necessary convergence or similarity in diversity standards across different countries, or a one-size-fits-all employment policy standard that applies to every country.

When determining why it might be more difficult to comply with diversity standards in the U. S. than in Canada, it is first necessary to examine the make-up of the workforce candidates in these countries respectively. Canada can be seen as a much more homogenous community than is the United States, with a larger number of citizens coming from similar ethnicities and backgrounds. The United States, by contrast, has potential employees from a wide range of cultures and ethnicities all vying for similar positions; this greatly complicates employers’ ability to satisfy diversity standards to every type of job applicant. As an example, potential employers in Canada might have to decide between applicants of two different ethnicities to fill a job opening, while employers in the United States might be faced with applicants of several different cultures or ethnicities in a similar situation.

Responses to Topics Presented in Sections 4 and 5

Sections four and five in the Harvey and Allard (2015) text go into great lengths discussing the issues pertaining to and the difficulties inherent in managing diversity in the workplace. It is pointed out that these issues continue to evolve and will continue to do so in the future as the workforce becomes more and more diverse. Diversity issues relating to ethnic or cultural diversity cannot necessarily be handled in the same manner as those pertaining to gender diversity, and as immigrants from even more diverse cultures continue coming to this country and seeking employment, diversity issues will become even more complex. The primary point made by the authors is that workplace diversity is not, not can it ever be, a static issue, but instead is ever-changing and evolving as the type of people seeking employment make themselves available to employers. In addition, the United States is looked to by the global community as a leader in workplace diversity, which further increases this country’s responsibility to serve as an example in the correct way to hire and treat employees to the rest of the world.

Conclusion

Workplace diversity is a huge complicated issue that affects many employers left and right of corporations and companies of any size and any specialization, that goes hand in hand.. While when this country was first established , this issue was non-existent because no one noticed, as the only people considered to be employable were Caucasian males. Throughout the years as more types of potential employees came to the U.S they became available for many different things , the issue became much more complicated. Companies now must consider gender equality, racial and cultural equality, and religious equality when seeking to fill an open position in their corporation. This issue will only become much more complex as people from even more diverse cultures come to this country seeking work because our country is expanding each and every day , and it is imperative that the employers of this nation’s companies remain current on the laws and rules pertaining to diversity in the workplace , which is only fair.